Anonymous political speech. Foreign money
in U.S. elections. The proliferation of super PACs. How grave a threat
do any of things pose to American democracy? Not much, according to a
panel of conservative attorneys, who gathered Thursday at the
Conservative Political Action Conference in Washington, D.C.

The
high-profile legal minds on the CPAC panel largely agreed that the
changes to the campaign finance landscape are grounds for celebration.

Thanks to the Citizens United
decision, we've seen "more voices, more competition, and more
accountability," said panelist Benjamin Barr, a senior fellow at the
Goldwater Institute, a conservative think tank.

"Without SpeechNow.org,
the Republican nomination would have been sewed up weeks ago," added
Brad Smith, the former chairman of the Federal Election Commission who
co-founded the Center for Competitive Politics, a nonprofit that
promotes First Amendment political rights. "And in 2010, we would have
had fewer competitive races."

In the Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission
case in 2010, the U.S. Supreme Court allowed corporations and unions to
spend unlimited amounts of money from their treasuries on ads and other
activities to influence the election or defeat of federal candidates so
long as they are not coordinating with the candidates' campaigns.

A few months later, in SpeechNow.org v. Federal Election Commission,
used the Supreme Court's reasoning and decided that limits on
individual contributions to groups that make independent expenditures
are unconstitutional.

These rulings gave rise to the creation
of what are called super PACs — political organizations that can
receive unlimited corporate, union and individual contributions and make
unlimited expenditures to advocate for the election or defeat federal
candidates. During his 2010 State of the Union, President Barack Obama
condemned the court's Citizens United ruling and warned that
foreign interests would be able to "spend without limits" — a criticism
that earned a rebuff from Justice Samuel Alito, who mouthed "not true,"
while listening to Obama's address in the chamber.

Smith, during
the panel, said that he is "not frightened" by the prospect of Brits,
Colombians or even Syrians spending money in the U.S. political process.

"I'm not that alarmed if foreigners [want to be involved in U.S. elections]," Smith said. "It doesn't worry me."

He expressed more concerned about the prospect of forcing government contractors to abstain from making political contributions.

"One of the new things the left is trying to do is get anyone who is a government contractor silenced," he said.

The
panel, entitled, "What's Up With Campaign Finance?," was moderated by
Dan Backer, the principal attorney for DB Capitol Strategies PLLC.
Backer's legal career has included spearheading the major campaign
finance case Carey v. Federal Election, which, last year, opened the door for all political action committees to morph into hybrid super PACs.

At
CPAC, Backer speculated that before the 2014 elections, the nation
could see a "fundamental rewrite" of the Federal Election Campaign Act
of 1971, including a "major increase" in the amount of money individuals
can contribute to candidates, the amount of money individuals can
contribute to PACs and the amount of money that PACs can donate to
candidates.

If contributions aren't adjusted, Backer told iWatch News,
the rules are "disincentivizing political association and speech by
making it easier/more effective to speak alone than with others."

Additionally,
Backer posited, that a rewrite of this law would allow corporate
contributions to candidates at the same levels as individuals. And he
further predicted that groups on the left would continue to clamor for
the IRS to investigate the nonprofit status of organizations that spend
large sums on political messages.

In the past, nonprofits
organized under section 501(c)(4) of the U.S. tax code and known as
"social welfare organizations" were permitted to make independent
expenditures and electioneering communications — but only if they did
not accept corporate or union contributions. Thanks to Citizens United, and another ruling in 2007, that restriction has been removed.

But unlike the super PACs, the nonprofits do not report who funds them.

With
this tax designation, these groups, such as conservative-aligned
outfits Crossroads GPS and the American Action Network, can engage in
political spending while keeping their donors anonymous. Only if a
person specifically earmarks his or her contribution for a particular
advertisement does the FEC require public disclosure. That doesn't occur
frequently.

In 2010, there was a surge of spending by super PACs and nonprofit organizations.

Super
PACs alone reported spending more than $65 million on ads and other
express advocacy, and nonprofit groups reported spending more than $134
million, according to the Center for Responsive Politics.

In
response, Democratic lawmakers and campaign finance reform groups have
pushed for new reporting requirements and disclosure rules for these
groups.

This year two bills have been introduced in this vein: the
DISCLOSE Act, which is sponsored by Rep. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.), and
the SUPERPAC Act, which is the brainchild of the Sunlight Foundation, a
nonpartisan, transparency-focused nonprofit advocacy organization.

Both bills were mentioned, and dismissed, by the CPAC panelists.

"The
people in favor of this want people to think twice before they
participate in the political process," attorney Stephen Hoersting told iWatch News.

"Let's
say you have a trade association takes dues from Ford, do they really
want to know who bought the last Fusion or the last F-150?" he
continued. "I'm not for knowing the names behind the names."

Panelist
Allen Dickerson, the legal director of the Center for Competitive
Politics, predicted that it would be the courts, not Congress, that
would make any changes to campaign finance laws in the next few years.

"I don't think there's any chance of that kind of legislation passing," he said. Former FEC Chairman Smith agreed.

"The action on this will be in the courts, for better or for worse," he said, "for the time being."

Tucson weather

Weather data not available

Yes!

I want to help TucsonSentinel.com offer a real news alternative!

We're committed to making quality news accessible; we'll never set up a paywall or charge for our site. But we rely on your support to bring you independent news without the spin. Use our convenient PayPal/credit card donation form below or contact us at donate@tucsonsentinel.com today.